3 POINTO LIVEIT FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 747/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 March 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the petition and affidavit. It was decided to restore the matter to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make further submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, incorporated in July 2023, applied for registration under sections 80G and 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the applications and cancelled the provisional registration, citing non-compliance and lack of genuineness of activities. The assessee argued that they did not receive hearing notices and were unaware of the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the applications for registration and cancelling provisional registration without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 12A,Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 13.03.2025Pronounced: 24.03.2025

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the orders of Ld. CIT(Exemption), Pune, vide order nos. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1068300647(1) and ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1068300479(1) and, dated 03/09/2024, u/s. 80G and 12A(1)(ac), respectively of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2024-25.

2.

Grounds taken by the Assessee are reproduced as under:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 80G(5) of the act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 80G(5) of the act and that too without giving any opportunity of being heard in the matter.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 80G(5) of the act and that too without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted vide order dated 25.03.2024.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all of the grounds of Appeal at any time. For 3Pointo Livelt Foundation”

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 12AB of the act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 12AB of the act and that too without giving any opportunity of being heard in the matter.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration u/s 12AB of the act and that too without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred in cancelling the provisional registration granted vide order dated 14.02.2024.”

3. At the outset, it is noted that Registry has recorded a delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal for which a petition for condonation along with affidavit is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 25.07.2023 and is registered u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013.The objects for which assessee is established are:

i) To support sports initiatives by promoting sports at all levels, providing financial support to sports organizations and sports programs, sponsoring athletes and sports teams. ii) To support educational initiatives by providing scholarships, grants, or financial aid to deserving students, promoting skill development programs, supporting educational institutions and under taking initiatives to enhance access to quality education.

1. To provide gender equality and empower women such as providing skill training and employment opportunities, supporting women entrepreneurship, implementing initiatives to improve women's health and well-being, and promoting gender diversity and inclusivity in the work place.

4.1. Assessee was granted provisional registration u/s 12A vide order dated 14.02.2024 from AY 2024-25 to AY 2026-27. It applied for regularization of the provisional registration granted vide application dated 27.03.2024. Ld. CIT(E), Mumbai, rejected the application by observing that " The assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence the undersigned is unable to draw any satisfactory conclusion about genuineness of activities of the assesse and the compliance to the requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust /institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects." In this regard, assessee states that it has submitted almost all the details along with the application itself. However, the hearing notices could not be complied with, as assessee did not receive any of them and was unaware of the hearing proceedings. Ld. CIT(E), while rejecting the application, also cancelled the provisional registration granted vide order dated 14.02.2024.

5.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for restoration of the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(E) by giving an assurance that all the necessary compliances shall be made once an opportunity is given for the same. Similar prayer is made for appeal in relating to registration u/s.80G. However, ld. CIT(A) DR objected the prayer so made.

6.

We have considered the material on record and perused the order of ld. CIT(E). In the interest of justice and fair play and the assurance given by the ld. Counsel, we find it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(E) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the applications made by the assessee in both the appeals for registration u/s.12A and 80G of the Act. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so desired. Assessee is also directed to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →